-
British Journal of Anaesthesia Jan 2023Intrapulmonary shunt is a major determinant of oxygenation in thoracic surgery under one-lung ventilation. We reviewed the effects of available treatments on shunt,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Impact of pharmacological interventions on intrapulmonary shunt during one-lung ventilation in adult thoracic surgery: a systematic review and component network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Intrapulmonary shunt is a major determinant of oxygenation in thoracic surgery under one-lung ventilation. We reviewed the effects of available treatments on shunt, Pao/FiO and haemodynamics through systematic review and network meta-analysis.
METHODS
Online databases were searched for RCTs comparing pharmacological interventions and intrapulmonary shunt in thoracic surgery under one-lung ventilation up to March 30, 2022. Random-effects (component) network meta-analysis compared 24 treatments and 19 treatment components. The Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) framework assessed evidence certainty. The primary outcome was intrapulmonary shunt fraction during one-lung ventilation.
RESULTS
A total of 55 RCTs were eligible for systematic review (2788 participants). The addition of NO (mean difference [MD]=-15%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -25 to -5; P=0.003) or almitrine (MD=-13%; 95% CI, -20 to -6; P<0.001) to propofol anaesthesia were efficient at decreasing shunt. Combined epidural anaesthesia (MD=3%; 95% CI, 1-5; P=0.005), sevoflurane (MD=5%; 95% CI, 2-8; P<0.001), isoflurane (MD=6%; 95% CI, 4-9; P<0.001), and desflurane (MD=9%; 95% CI, 4-14; P=0.001) increased shunt vs propofol. Almitrine (MD=147 mm Hg; 95% CI, 58-236; P=0.001), dopexamine (MD=88 mm Hg; 95% CI, 4-171; P=0.039), and iloprost (MD=81 mm Hg; 95% CI, 4-158; P=0.038) improved Pao/FiO. Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate.
CONCLUSIONS
Adding NO or almitrine to propofol anaesthesia reduced intrapulmonary shunt during one-lung ventilation. Halogenated anaesthetics increased shunt in comparison with propofol. The effects of NO, iloprost, and dexmedetomidine should be investigated in future research. NO results constitute a research hypothesis currently not backed by any direct evidence. The clinical availability of almitrine is limited.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL
PROSPERO CRD42022310313.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Almitrine; Iloprost; Network Meta-Analysis; One-Lung Ventilation; Propofol; Thoracic Surgery
PubMed: 36939497
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.08.039 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a large number of critically ill and severe COVID-19 patients meet the diagnostic criteria for sepsis and even...
During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a large number of critically ill and severe COVID-19 patients meet the diagnostic criteria for sepsis and even septic shock. The treatments for COVID-19 patients with sepsis are still very limited. For sepsis, improving ventilation is one of the main treatments. Nitric oxide (NO) and almitrine have been reported to improve oxygenation in patients with "classical" sepsis. Here, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of NO, almitrine, and the combination of both for COVID-19 (at the edge of sepsis) patients. A systematic search was performed on Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, the Web of Science, Wanfang Data, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. Randomized clinical trials, cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, case series, and case reports in COVID-19 patients with suspected or confirmed sepsis were performed. Study characteristics, patient demographics, interventions, and outcomes were extracted from eligible articles. A total of 35 studies representing 1,701 patients met eligibility criteria. Inhaled NO did not affect the mortality (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.33-2.8, I = 81%, very low certainty), hospital length of stay (SMD 0.62, 95% CI 0.04-1.17, I = 83%, very low certainty), and intubation needs (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.34-1.93, I = 56%, very low certainty) of patients with COVID-19 (at the edge of sepsis). Meanwhile, almitrine did not affect the mortality (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.17-1.13, low certainty), hospital length of stay (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.29-0.29, low certainty), intubation needs (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.5-1.79, low certainty), and SAEs (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.63-2.15, low certainty). Compared with pre-administration, the PaO/FiO of patients with NO (SMD-0.87, 95% CI -1.08-0.66, I = 0%, very low certainty), almitrine (SMD-0.73, 95% CI-1.06-0.4, I = 1%, very low certainty), and the combination of both (SMD-0.94, 95% CI-1.71-0.16, I = 47%, very low certainty) increased significantly. Inhaled NO, almitrine, and the combination of the two drugs improved oxygenation significantly, but did not affect the patients' mortality, hospitalization duration, and intubation needs. Almitrine did not significantly increase the patients' SAEs. Well-designed high-quality studies are needed for establishing a stronger quality of evidence. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=367667, identifier CRD42022367667.
PubMed: 38318311
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1172447 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2011Almitrine-raubasine combination (brand name Duxil), has been considered as an alternative treatment for dementia. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Almitrine-raubasine combination (brand name Duxil), has been considered as an alternative treatment for dementia.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the clinical efficacy and safety of Duxil in the treatment of patients with dementia.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialised Register (now known as ALOIS) (September 2009), the China Biological Medicine Database (CBM-disc 1979 to December 2009), the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (www.cnki.net 1979 to December 2009), the Stroke Trials Registry at www.strokecentre.org/trials/index.aspx. We searched identified citations for additional trials, contacted the first author of identified trials for additional references and unpublished data. We also contacted the pharmaceutical company manufacturing Duxil (Servier Pharmaceutical Co Ltd) for additional unpublished data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials studying the efficacy and safety of Duxil for dementia were included, irrespective of blinding, publication status, or language. If the trial was cross-over in nature, only data from the first period were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted the data.
MAIN RESULTS
Three trials involving a total of 206 participants were included, all patients with vascular dementia. All three included studies were assessed as being at high risk of bias. When analysing these trials together, there was significant beneficial effect of Duxil on the improvement of cognitive function measured by MMSE (WMD 2.04, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.66). No data on behaviour and death at the end of treatment and follow-up were available from the included trials. Two trials failed to show an improvement of functional performance measured by ADL (WMD -1.68; 95% CI -3.70 to 0.35). Of the three included trials, all described the adverse events in detail, there were no statistically significant differences across the trials (OR 4.84, 95%CI 0.55 to 42.67). Behaviour disturbance, quality of life, caregiver burden were not undertaken in the included trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Due to the low methodological quality of included trials, small number of trials and probable publication bias, this review did not provide sufficient evidence to support the routine use of Duxil for the treatment of patients with dementia. High-quality and large-scale randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm or refute these results.
Topics: Aged; Almitrine; Dementia; Drug Combinations; Humans; Middle Aged; Neuroprotective Agents; Yohimbine
PubMed: 21412915
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008068.pub2